对侧预防性乳房切除术仅能略微提高单侧三阴性乳腺癌患者的生存率:一项基于SEER数据库的队列研究

Pengcheng Yang, Y. Chu, Qian Li, Tianyu Lei, Jia Song, T. Ning, Q. Hu
{"title":"对侧预防性乳房切除术仅能略微提高单侧三阴性乳腺癌患者的生存率:一项基于SEER数据库的队列研究","authors":"Pengcheng Yang, Y. Chu, Qian Li, Tianyu Lei, Jia Song, T. Ning, Q. Hu","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-900438/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background: The effect of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) on the survival rate of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to confirm whether unilateral TNBC patients benefit from CPM.Methods: 10006 patients with unilateral TNBC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database were enrolled in this study, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance patient assignments. After PSM,3039 pairs of patients were divided into a CPM group and no-CPM group, respectively. All the patients have undergone total mastectomy or radical mastectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) of the two groups. Subgroup analysis was introduced to exclude the effect of confounding factors. To identify potential variables for prognosis, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were used and were presented by Kaplan–Meier curve and forest plot separately.Results: With a median follow‐up time of 34.5months (IQR 1–83 months), the estimated 5-year BCSS rates for patients in the CPM group and the no-CPM group were 81.96% and 78.71%, the 5-year OS rates were 80.10% and 75.05%, respectively. CPM improved the BCSS (hazard ratio [HR]= 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.69-0.90, p=0.001) and OS (HR= 0.74; 95% CI=0.66-0.84, p<0.001) of unilateral TNBC patients. Univariate subgroup analyses revealed that there was no significant difference in survival time for patients in stage N3 who underwent CPM or not (p>0.05).Conclusions: CPM only limitedly improved BCSS and OS in patients with unilateral TNBC undergoing total mastectomy or radical mastectomy and was not recommended for stage N3 patients.","PeriodicalId":91853,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in oncology (Belmont, Calif.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Improves Survival Only Marginally in Patients with Unilateral Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Cohort Study Based on SEER Database\",\"authors\":\"Pengcheng Yang, Y. Chu, Qian Li, Tianyu Lei, Jia Song, T. Ning, Q. Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-900438/v1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Background: The effect of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) on the survival rate of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to confirm whether unilateral TNBC patients benefit from CPM.Methods: 10006 patients with unilateral TNBC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database were enrolled in this study, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance patient assignments. After PSM,3039 pairs of patients were divided into a CPM group and no-CPM group, respectively. All the patients have undergone total mastectomy or radical mastectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) of the two groups. Subgroup analysis was introduced to exclude the effect of confounding factors. To identify potential variables for prognosis, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were used and were presented by Kaplan–Meier curve and forest plot separately.Results: With a median follow‐up time of 34.5months (IQR 1–83 months), the estimated 5-year BCSS rates for patients in the CPM group and the no-CPM group were 81.96% and 78.71%, the 5-year OS rates were 80.10% and 75.05%, respectively. CPM improved the BCSS (hazard ratio [HR]= 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.69-0.90, p=0.001) and OS (HR= 0.74; 95% CI=0.66-0.84, p<0.001) of unilateral TNBC patients. Univariate subgroup analyses revealed that there was no significant difference in survival time for patients in stage N3 who underwent CPM or not (p>0.05).Conclusions: CPM only limitedly improved BCSS and OS in patients with unilateral TNBC undergoing total mastectomy or radical mastectomy and was not recommended for stage N3 patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in oncology (Belmont, Calif.)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in oncology (Belmont, Calif.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-900438/v1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in oncology (Belmont, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-900438/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对侧预防性乳房切除术(CPM)对三阴性乳腺癌(TNBC)患者生存率的影响仍存在争议。本研究的目的是确认单侧TNBC患者是否受益于CPM。方法:从监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)数据库中纳入10006例单侧TNBC患者,采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)来平衡患者分配。经PSM治疗后,3039对患者分别分为CPM组和未CPM组。所有患者均行全乳切除术或根治性乳房切除术。采用Cox比例风险回归模型评价两组患者的总生存期(OS)和乳腺癌特异性生存期(BCSS)。采用亚组分析排除混杂因素的影响。为确定影响预后的潜在变量,采用Kaplan-Meier生存分析和Cox回归分析,分别用Kaplan-Meier曲线和森林图表示。结果:中位随访时间为34.5个月(IQR 1 ~ 83个月),CPM组和非CPM组患者5年BCSS估计率分别为81.96%和78.71%,5年OS分别为80.10%和75.05%。CPM改善了BCSS(风险比[HR]= 0.79;95%可信区间[CI]=0.69-0.90, p=0.001)和OS (HR= 0.74;95% CI=0.66-0.84, p0.05)。结论:CPM仅能有限地改善接受全乳或根治性乳房切除术的单侧TNBC患者的BCSS和OS,不推荐用于N3期患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Improves Survival Only Marginally in Patients with Unilateral Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Cohort Study Based on SEER Database
Background: The effect of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) on the survival rate of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to confirm whether unilateral TNBC patients benefit from CPM.Methods: 10006 patients with unilateral TNBC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database were enrolled in this study, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance patient assignments. After PSM,3039 pairs of patients were divided into a CPM group and no-CPM group, respectively. All the patients have undergone total mastectomy or radical mastectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) of the two groups. Subgroup analysis was introduced to exclude the effect of confounding factors. To identify potential variables for prognosis, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were used and were presented by Kaplan–Meier curve and forest plot separately.Results: With a median follow‐up time of 34.5months (IQR 1–83 months), the estimated 5-year BCSS rates for patients in the CPM group and the no-CPM group were 81.96% and 78.71%, the 5-year OS rates were 80.10% and 75.05%, respectively. CPM improved the BCSS (hazard ratio [HR]= 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.69-0.90, p=0.001) and OS (HR= 0.74; 95% CI=0.66-0.84, p<0.001) of unilateral TNBC patients. Univariate subgroup analyses revealed that there was no significant difference in survival time for patients in stage N3 who underwent CPM or not (p>0.05).Conclusions: CPM only limitedly improved BCSS and OS in patients with unilateral TNBC undergoing total mastectomy or radical mastectomy and was not recommended for stage N3 patients.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quantitative Evaluation of the Relationship between Magnetic Resonance Elastic Value and Pathological Grade of Hepatocellular Carcinoma by Magnetic Resonance Elastography Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Improves Survival Only Marginally in Patients with Unilateral Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Cohort Study Based on SEER Database Inflammation, Oxidative Stress and Cobalt Deficiency in Acute Childhood Leukemia GTV Cochlea Distance to Predict the Feasibility of Dose Limiting in Cochlea Sparing during Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Removal of a Huge Uterine Mass, Weighing 11000 Grams, In an Elderly Woman with a Minimally Invasive Surgical Approach: Feasibility and Safety
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1